ACL bids to counter scepticism over electronic bill of costs with “more workable” version

There is very little enthusiasm among costs professionals for the new electronic format of the bill of costs, a survey by the Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL) has found.

However, the ACL has launched its own, more workable version to introduce lawyers and judges alike to the possibilities of the Excel-based bill.

There has been virtually no take-up of the original electronic bill, Precedent AA, since a pilot began in the Senior Courts Costs Office in October 2015 following work done by the Hutton committee. In October 2016, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee made amendments to the bill being used in the pilot, issuing Precedent AB, and said the aim was for a final version to become mandatory from October 2017.

The key change this autumn was to drop the requirement that users of the new bill had to apply the J-Codes to record time.

Nonetheless, a poll of 117 ACL members held after the changes found that half thought the new bill format was simply not needed, with 28% saying it would actually make things worse. Just 9% said they were getting used to the new bill, while a pessimistic 34% reckoned that however good it may be, solicitors were simply not interested in changing.

Some 57% of respondents said October 2017 was too soon for it to become compulsory, although 28% agreed that ‘it has to happen sometime, so why not then?’

Just one in ten Costs Lawyers expected the J-Codes change to improve the situation, while nearly half (48%) thought them dead in the water. A third (32%) predicted that some will still use the J-Codes, but said other approaches would be just as effective.

The ACL Bill of Costs takes into account comments made about the pilot version by members, SCCO masters and solicitors alike, which in broad terms indicated that Precedent AA was overly convoluted.

ACL chairman Iain Stark said: “Having analysed what is required under the practice direction, the ACL Bill is intended to be a more workable solution for a claim for costs. It is intentionally far less rigid than Precedent AB.

“For some members of the judiciary, Costs Lawyers and draftsmen, the ACL Bill will represent their introduction to the more advanced features of Excel. It allows them to hone the essential skills they will need as the civil courts continue to embrace technology to advance the services they provide.

“With such a focus on modernising civil justice, some form of electronic bill of costs is inevitable. Done properly, it can offer significant benefits to parties, judges and lawyers alike. Nobody is better placed than the ACL to take the lead on this and we believe that the ACL Bill will smooth the path for what will be a major change in the way litigators operate.”


For further information, please contact: Kerry Jack, Black Letter Communications

Tel: 020 3567 1208,

Notes to editors:

Association of Costs Lawyers

The Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL) is a membership body representing and promoting the status and interests of Cost Lawyers in England and Wales. Founded in 1977, the Association was granted authorised body status in 2007 and is a front-line regulator, able to authorise its members to undertake the reserved legal activities of litigation and advocacy. In recognition of this new-found status, ACL changed its name from the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen in 2011. Costs Lawyers are regulated by the Costs Lawyer Standards Board.

The term ‘costs draftsman’ denotes an unregulated and unqualified person operating in costs and those who instruct costs draftsmen have no recourse to either the Legal Ombudsman or the Costs Lawyer Standards Board.

Exclusive Access

Members only article

This article is exclusively for ACL members. Please log in to proceed, or click the button below to fill out an application from and become a part of our professional community.

Post details

Post type
Press Releases
Published date
06 Dec 2016

Fill this form out to be notified when booking goes live.

Your Full Name
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.